ORDER : This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Smt.Haseena, wife of one Saiphan Makandar seeking following reliefs: i) Declare the detention of Saiphan s/o.Razaksab Makandar vide order dated 08.12.2020 bearing No.MAG/CR-45/2020-21 passed by Respondent No.1 which is marked and filed as Annexure-A as illegal and void ab-initio; ii) Declare the detention affirmation order of Saiphan s/o.Razaksab Makandar vide order dated 22.01.2021 bearing No.HD 125 SST 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 which is marked and filed as Annexure-E as illegal and void ab-initio; iii) Pass such other orders including the release of the detenue forthwith as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly stated are that the third respondent had recommended the first respondent to invoke Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to declare the aforesaid husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'detenue') as goonda and consequently to pass an order of his detention under the Act. That pursuant to the said recommendation exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Act, first respondent passed order dated 08.12.2020 as per Annexure-A for preventive detention of the detenue. That on the very same day, first respondent furnished compilation of copies of documents consisting of 1,078 pages to the detenue. That the detenue was already in judicial custody in Crime No.27/2020 registered by Babaleshwar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1)(a), 29(a)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and that he has been in judicial custody from 07.11.2020. That the detenue was informed that the aforesaid order of detention was appealable and the same could be challenged before the advisory committee. That the matter was taken up by the advisory committee through Video Conference on 11.01.2020. That the second respondent passed an order dated 22.01.2021 as per Annexure-E affirming the order of detention passed by first respondent and directed the detenue to be detained for a period of twelve months from 08.12.2020 under the provisions of the Act. That the matter was taken up by the advisory committee through Video Conference on 11.01.2020. That the second respondent passed an order dated 22.01.2021 as per Annexure-E affirming the order of detention passed by first respondent and directed the detenue to be detained for a period of twelve months from 08.12.2020 under the provisions of the Act. That aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2020 and 22.01.2021 passed by first respondent and second respondent, respectively, the petitioner being the wife of the detenue has approached this Court praying for issue of writ of habeas corpus. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that there has been no application of mind to the material on record by the first respondent before passing of the order of preventive detention. That mere pendency of number of cases would not justify invocation of provisions of the Act requiring preventive detention. That the procedure established under law and the legal precedents have been strictly followed. The subsequent order passed by second respondent affirming the detention of detenue for a period of twelve months is also unsustainable inasmuch as the first order itself was devoid of any grounds or satisfaction of the authority passing the order, viz., first respondent. 4. He further submits that the detenue was already in prison having voluntarily surrendered before the court in Crime No.27/2020 on 17.11.2020, as such, the question of invoking the order under the provisions of the Act does not arise. That the first respondent has not furnished the grounds and the reasons forming basis of the order of detention as mandatorily required under the law. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT.JAYAMMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU reported in ILR 2019 KAR 1543 and also the order dated 02.06.2021 passed by this Court in the case of Smt.Tarannum C.Inamdar vs. The Deputy Commissioner in Writ Petition (HC) No.200014/2020 (D.D.02.06.2021). He submits that the impugned order of detention does not satisfy the guidelines laid down in the case of Jayamma (supra) and reiterated by this Court in the subsequent order. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, defends and justifies the order of detention. He submits that the impugned order of detention does not satisfy the guidelines laid down in the case of Jayamma (supra) and reiterated by this Court in the subsequent order. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, defends and justifies the order of detention. Referring to the counter-affidavit filed by first respondent along with the documents consisting of 1078 pages, submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders of detention passed by first respondent and second respondent, respectively. Referring to the letter dated 03.10.2020 addressed by the third respondent to the first respondent which is produced as document No.1 in the compilation. It is submitted that the same forms the basis of the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the first respondent. She further submits that the detenue was heard through video conference by the Advisory Committee on 11.01.2021 and that it is only thereafter, the second respondent confirmed the order of detention for a period of twelve months. It is submitted that the mandatory provisions of the Act have been complied with and that there is no infirmity or illegality. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard the counsel and perused the records. 7. The only question arises for consideration is: Whether the order of detention dated 08.12.2020 passed by the first respondent and the subsequent order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the second respondent are in accordance with law and justified?" 8. Section 8 of the 1985 Act requires disclosure of grounds of order of detention to persons affected by the order, which reads as follows: 8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order.-(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that the detenue was already in judicial custody having been voluntarily surrendered in Crime No.27/2020 on 17.11.2020. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that the detenue was already in judicial custody having been voluntarily surrendered in Crime No.27/2020 on 17.11.2020. The order of detention dated 08.12.2020 passed by the first respondent purportedly in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Act, while listing the criminal cases registered against the detenue under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and other acts, concludes by stating that the detenue is ordered to be kept under detention from 08.12.2020 until further orders in the Central Jail and that the basis and reasons for the said order are enclosed. 10. On a close perusal of the said order dated 08.12.2020, it does not evince that there is compliance of the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. In that the order does not mention the grounds on which the detention is ordered. Excepting listing of the cases, it does not reveal the basis on which the first respondent arrived at a conclusion to pass the order of detention. The compilation of 1078 pages consist of a letter dated 03.10.2020 issued by the third respondent to the first respondent recommending to detain the detenue under the provisions of the Act and the documents of various proceedings apparently pending against the detenue. Though the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2020 states that the grounds and material for detention are enclosed, the same is neither placed on record along with objection statement nor is it found in the records produced before the court. 11. The law in these matters is well settled. This Court in the case of Jayamma(supra), has laid down detailed guidelines and the procedure to be followed by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. The said principles of law and the guidelines laid down in the said case have been reiterated by this Court in its order dated 02.06.2021 in WP(HC) No.14/2020. It is needless to extract the same in this matter. The order dated 08.12.2020 at Annexure-A is well short of compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Act let alone compliance with the guidelines and procedures laid down by this Court in the case of Jayamma(supra). It is needless to extract the same in this matter. The order dated 08.12.2020 at Annexure-A is well short of compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Act let alone compliance with the guidelines and procedures laid down by this Court in the case of Jayamma(supra). The first respondent has not even referred to the documents in compilation or their contents in the impugned order except mechanically reproducing the numbers of the criminal cases pending against the detenue. There is not even a whisper even to the letter dated 03.10.2021 issued by the third respondent recommending and proposing to invoke the provisions of the Act and to pass the order of detention. In any case, the letter dated 03.10.2020 issued by the third respondent to the first respondent can hardly form the basis and compliance as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. 12. For the sustainability of the order of detention the real test is the strict compliance of the procedural safe-guards and not the severity of the offences alone. The reasons for the compliance with the mandatory requirement are not far to seek. Under the Preventive Detention Law as that of in the instant case, there is no provision for adjudication of propriety or otherwise of the order determining the detenue as goonda or otherwise as defined under the Act. There is also no provision under the Act for the detenue to seek release on bail. It is only on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the authority the order of detention is passed. This subjective satisfaction of the authority therefore should not be arbitrary or perverse. The subjective satisfaction should palpably emanate from the order of detention therefore disclosure of grounds and the reasons thereof is imperative. 13. In the instant case, we do not see the compliance of the procedural safeguard provided under the Act and repeatedly emphasized and laid down by the courts of law. The first respondent has not formulated the grounds and has not given reasons for his satisfaction to pass the order of detention. Thus, we are of the considered view that order dated 08.12.2020 and the order dated 22.01.2021 at Annexures-A and E are not in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the guidelines and procedures laid down by the courts. 14. For the foregoing analysis, the Writ Petition is allowed. Thus, we are of the considered view that order dated 08.12.2020 and the order dated 22.01.2021 at Annexures-A and E are not in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the guidelines and procedures laid down by the courts. 14. For the foregoing analysis, the Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 08.12.2020 bearing No.MAG/CR-45/2020-21 passed by the first respondent at Annexure-A and order dated 22.01.2021 bearing No.HD/125 SST 2020 passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-E is quashed and the detenue shall be released forthwith. 15. In view of the statement made by the petitioner in the writ petition that the detenue is already in the judicial custody having voluntarily surrendered in Crime No.27/2020 on 17.11.2020 pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Vijayapura, it is made clear that this order shall not be used for the release of detenue if he is detained under any other law. This order is only in respect of the detention of the detenue made pursuant to the order dated 08.12.02020 as per Annexure-A and order dated 22.01.2021 as per Annexure-E.